[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22835027

Labour has said spending on state pensions is likely to be included in its proposed cap on welfare budgets.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls told the BBC "at the moment" Labour intended to factor pensions into its calculations for a three-year cap from 2015-16.

The opposition said it was committed to maintaining the value of the state pension but welfare expenditure needed to be looked at "across the piece".

Mr Balls told the BBC's Sunday Politics: "George Osborne is going to announce his cap in two weeks time. I don't know whether he will exclude or include pensioners spending. At the moment our plan is to include it."

The shadow chancellor said it was not the case that a future Labour government would have to cut the value of the state pension in order to ensure any welfare cap was not breached.

But he said including pensions, which forms the largest part of the multi-billion pound structural benefits bill, made sense.

"Look across the whole welfare state and ask what are the drivers of expenditure," he explained.

"I think many people watching your programme will not realise that actually today the clear large bulk, most welfare spending is in fact going to people over 60. That is the truth. We should look across the piece."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22835027

All parties should beware the grey vote - those that are and those that soon will be :

“At the 2010 general election, 40-somethings were dominant at the ballot box. The youngest voters, and voters in their early-30s, were particularly disadvantaged. There were more potential voters aged 50, 51, 52 or 63 than any single age between 31 and 36, more potential voters aged 62 than any single age between 32 and 35, and more potential voters aged 50, 51 or 63 than aged 18. The potential voting power of people approaching retirement in 2010, whose life chances will be affected by electoral outcomes to a far lesser extent than younger voters, is therefore highly significant.”

[GiRTh]

About time they started to pick on the pensioners..

[Vicky.]

I actually agree with this. It is simply unfair to keep chopping away at working age benefits while excluding the state pension and pensioner benefits. Especially when pensions make up the bulk of the welfare cost...

IDS has a habit of including pensions in the welfare budget when justifying his cuts..using the excuse the welfare spending is out of control, yet excluding all things pensioner related when he makes the cuts. Welfare spending will continue to rise no matter how many working age benefits you cut..as people are still getting older..while pensioners cant be touched, the welfare bill will NEVER go down.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I actually agree with this. It is simply unfair to keep chopping away at working age benefits while excluding the state pension and pensioner benefits. Especially when pensions make up the bulk of the welfare cost...

IDS has a habit of including pensions in the welfare budget when justifying his cuts..using the excuse the welfare spending is out of control, yet excluding all things pensioner related when he makes the cuts. Welfare spending will continue to rise no matter how many working age benefits you cut..as people are still getting older..while pensioners cant be touched, the welfare bill will NEVER go down.

At the cost to myself of being seen as repeating myself even more I really have to say, again I agree with you Vicky as to this.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I actually agree with this. It is simply unfair to keep chopping away at working age benefits while excluding the state pension and pensioner benefits. Especially when pensions make up the bulk of the welfare cost...

IDS has a habit of including pensions in the welfare budget when justifying his cuts..using the excuse the welfare spending is out of control, yet excluding all things pensioner related when he makes the cuts. Welfare spending will continue to rise no matter how many working age benefits you cut..as people are still getting older..while pensioners cant be touched, the welfare bill will NEVER go down.

Agree with you but, most pensioners vote so it's no surprise they took a while to get round to screwing them.

By the time most posters on here retire state pensions will almost certainly have been scrapped cuz they, simply, cost way too much money. Its becoming harder and harder to justify the huge pay-outs to people who no longer work.

[Nedusa]

A huge number of pensioners live on only the state pension so it must keep pace with the cost of living and inflation. It must be linked to the RPI or the CPI and should not be capped to any artificial figure.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

A huge number of pensioners live on only the state pension so it must keep pace with the cost of living and inflation. It must be linked to the RPI or the CPI and should not be capped to any artificial figure.

They should have sorted out their pension ages ago well before they retired. They cant expect the state to subsidise them until they die. What if they live to over 100?

Not my views but the counter arguments to keeping the state pension.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

By the time most posters on here retire state pensions will almost certainly have been scrapped

Then most will die on retirement after their savings evaporate within a few short months :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ert-warns.html

Private pensions will not exist by 2050 as young people have no interest in saving money that they can not touch for decades, a leading pension expert has warned.

Michael Johnson, a research fellow at think tank the Centre for Policy Studies, said that private pensions will cease to exist within years because young people see having immediate access to savings as far more important than putting money aside for their retirement.

Recent research found that just 12 per cent of people in their 20s and early 30s are paying into a pension, despite the Treasury offering tax relief on retirement savings.

Mr Johnson said: “The word ‘pension’ does not resonate with Generation Y. Immediate access to savings is far more important to them than the 20 per cent bribe that is tax relief.”

Pension saving among young people is extremely low, particularly as many now have student tuition fees to pay off. A recent report also found that people aged between 25 and 34 also have “entirely unrealistic” pension assumptions.

According to a recent study by Blackrock, the fund manager, a third of young people expect to retire on Ł30,000 a year even though so few are saving for their retirement.

For this Ł30,000 figure to be reached, a 25-year-old would have to save Ł400 every month until they reach retirement age, assuming an annual return of 5 per cent. Meanwhile a 35-year-old would have to save Ł750 a month.

Of course, Ł30,000 in 2050 won't even buy a bicycle .....

So the Ł400 pm will have to be increased (at least) in line with inflation every year .....

[Livia]

Most people on the state pension now didn't earn enough to save for a pension. And they didn't think they'd have to because they paid their tax and National Insurance. I think it's kind of hard-hearted to say ******* 'em, they should have sorted themselves out and they're expensive to keep. People arrive in this country every day and have access to benefits of all kinds without ever paying a penny into the system. It's a big no-no to say anything about that because you're deemed as being a racist. Some people go for years without working and live quite comfortably off the system, but if anyone criticises them there's a while litany of excuses why their benefits shouldn't be touched. So who is fair game for criticism? Oh yeah, the generation of people who've worked their whole life and paid into the system, and who are now seen as a burden. This country could learn a lot from other cultures who take care of, and respect their elderly. If you want to see how much respect this country has for its elderly, take a look at the care system.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They should have sorted out their pension ages ago well before they retired. They cant expect the state to subsidise them until they die. What if they live to over 100?

Not my views but the counter arguments to keeping the state pension.

I agree the current State pension is fast becoming an anachronism in todays financial landscape. Most people have company or private pensions and use the state pension as a top up. But for the less fortunate who do live entirely on a state pension that pension must keep pace with the cost of living and inflation.

I would like to see the whole subject of Pensions in this country modernised as it is way too complicated at present. Everybody from the minimum adult working age (18) should be required to set up some form of pension provision which they keep all their working life. The amount they receive should be closely tied to the amount they (and their employers) contribute.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Most people on the state pension now didn't earn enough to save for a pension. And they didn't think they'd have to because they paid their tax and National Insurance. I think it's kind of hard-hearted to say ******* 'em, they should have sorted themselves out and they're expensive to keep. People arrive in this country every day and have access to benefits of all kinds without ever paying a penny into the system. It's a big no-no to say anything about that because you're deemed as being a racist. Some people go for years without working and live quite comfortably off the system, but if anyone criticises them there's a while litany of excuses why their benefits shouldn't be touched. So who is fair game for criticism? Oh yeah, the generation of people who've worked their whole life and paid into the system, and who are now seen as a burden. This country could learn a lot from other cultures who take care of, and respect their elderly. If you want to see how much respect this country has for its elderly, take a look at the care system.

The thing is though, most of our generation will have paid in for decades and will get nothing. And a lot of todays people dont earn enough to save for a private pension either.

And many claiming out of work benefits have paid in enough to get them..loads are on contributions based but are still tarred with the same brush as those who have never worked.

On the same note, I know of quite a few pensioners who have never worked, or worked very little. My father in laws mate..has had one job in his whole life, and that lasted a few months. He gets something called pension credit though, which is different from the state pension..but still the same amount (I believe). Edit - 2.5m pensioners (3m+ if including partners) get pension credit rather than state pension..meaning they havent worked enough to get an actual pension..

I dont think anyone wants to see them chopping away at pensions (and pension related benefits) however..if they continually add pensions to the welfare bill when 'justifying' why they need to reduce the bill..then its only fair that they also reduce pensions, no? If they arent going to touch them then remove them from the welfare bill and let people see just how much actually goes on working age people. Its at least half of the figures that the government continually spout. Most people have no problem with disabled people claiming either and wouldnt want to see THEIR benefits cut..so remove those people too. Result would be that JSA (working age, and able to work people) is only 3%..which is around 6billion. From a total bill of around 200b. Not much really.

Of course the unemployed who are claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit would need to be added to that..but there doesnt seem to be any figures for how much of the HB bill goes on the unemployed but able to work. The majority of new claims though..are from employed people. Which is also a problem :S

TLDR ; If no-one wants pensions touched, or doesnt see them as welfare..then they should be seperate from the welfare bill. Otherwise its unfair on everyone except the government peddling dodgy figures to do what they wish with the smallest uproar possible.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Most people on the state pension now didn't earn enough to save for a pension. And they didn't think they'd have to because they paid their tax and National Insurance. I think it's kind of hard-hearted to say ******* 'em, they should have sorted themselves out and they're expensive to keep. People arrive in this country every day and have access to benefits of all kinds without ever paying a penny into the system. It's a big no-no to say anything about that because you're deemed as being a racist. Some people go for years without working and live quite comfortably off the system, but if anyone criticises them there's a while litany of excuses why their benefits shouldn't be touched. So who is fair game for criticism? Oh yeah, the generation of people who've worked their whole life and paid into the system, and who are now seen as a burden. This country could learn a lot from other cultures who take care of, and respect their elderly. If you want to see how much respect this country has for its elderly, take a look at the care system.

I agree with the argument that they cannot expect pay outs till they die. Every one has to tighten their belt, there must be cuts across the board and all that etc. Seems a bit unfair to make pensioners untouchable.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They should have sorted out their pension ages ago well before they retired. They cant expect the state to subsidise them until they die. What if they live to over 100?

I hope you've got yours sorted out - what if YOU live to over 100?

Of course, if you're 25 or under, you might have to work (if you've got a job in, say, 2043) until you're 75, say, 2063, when Ł30,000 now will only be worth Ł8,456.87 then and a 70 litre tank of petrol will cost Ł1,092.80, a loaf of bread Ł13.40, a bottle of wine Ł55.35 and a cinema ticket Ł63.45, assuming, for example, inflation rises at 5.00% and you receive annual interest of 2.40% on your savings after tax.

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/future-inflation-calculator

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Omah

I hope you've got yours sorted out - what if YOU live to over 100?

Of course, if you're 25 or under, you might have to work (if you've got a job in, say, 2043) until you're 75, say, 2063, when Ł30,000 now will only be worth Ł8,456.87 then and a 70 litre tank of petrol will cost Ł1,092.80, a loaf of bread Ł13.40, a bottle of wine Ł55.35 and a cinema ticket Ł63.45, assuming, for example, inflation rises at 5.00% and you receive annual interest of 2.40% on your savings after tax.

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/future-inflation-calculator

What does it say directly after that point? Please post it for the whole forum.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

What does it say directly after that point? Please post it for the whole forum.

Remember: If the interest rate you receive after tax is lower than the current rate of inflation you are losing money in real terms.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Omah

Remember: If the interest rate you receive after tax is lower than the current rate of inflation you are losing money in real terms.

Is that what it says? I thought I had said those views were not my own but I was trying to provide the counter argument to people who say pensioners are untouchable.

Interesting that you took the time to research the point you made - providing a quote and a handy link - but didn't take the time to read my post properly.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Is that what it says? I thought I had said those views were not my own but I was trying to provide the counter argument to people who say pensioners are untouchable.

Interesting that you took the time to research the point you made - providing a quote and a handy link - but didn't take the time to read my post properly.

Interesting that you haven't, even hypothetically, answered my question .....

[Vicky.]

I dont save for a pension, nor do I expect that state pension will be there when I retire..even though I have paid NI all my life.

I will deal with it when the time comes..dont see the point of stressing about it now really.

Edit. The main reasons for me not saving in order are

- I dont trust that the money will actually be available to me when the time comes
- I cant really afford to be shovelling hundreds away at the moment, and have never really been in a position to do that so far.
- You can pay in for 50 years, then only get 1 year return, or maybe none..seems nonsensical to me.
- When I can afford to save, I will. Then will just live off my savings when/if I chose to retire
- My gran saved for a pension, and had loads of savings. Now, because she saved, she has to pay Ł500 per WEEK to live in a ****ty care home that doesnt even do her washing or anything half of the time, whereas those who didnt save get care for free.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Omah

Interesting that you haven't, even hypothetically, answered my question .....

I'm sorted. Don't worry abut me. How about you?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I'm sorted. Don't worry abut me. How about you?

I'm loaded so I don't have to worry about pensions, just offshore investments .....

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Omah

I'm loaded so I don't have to worry about pensions, just offshore investments .....

Rich parents give me what I want. Incidentally, they claim a state pension each as well have a private one and sh*t loads in the bank. What a life they lead.

They also don't live in this country. LOL

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Rich parents give me what I want. Incidentally, they claim a state pension each as well have a private one and sh*t loads in the bank. What a life they lead.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They also don't live in this country. LOL

[Omah]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Rich parents give me what I want. Incidentally, they claim a state pension each as well have a private one and sh*t loads in the bank. What a life they lead.

They also don't live in this country. LOL

PS I lied about my offshore investments .....